3 ms·

> Even this sample could be marginal, going by the original paper. If the sample they claim is superconducting isn't superconducting; why should we assume that

• Jweb_Guru 3y ago
  That's exactly where I'm coming from here. The original evidence that had people cautiously optimistic has been thoroughly dismantled. It's not showing any unusual or inexplicable signs of superconductivity: no anomalously high diamagnetism, no anomalously low resistivity or IV curves, no heat capacity differences, it lacks a theoretical model, and all anomalous measurements can be completely explained in terms of known or predicted properties of its constituent materials. I don't even need to bring up the lack of credibility of most of the members of the lab, HT Kim's crackpot tendencies, or the fact that Qcentre misrepresented its affiliations for it to be clear that there's nothing to the original paper. Yet people are arguing "it might still be a superconductor! Just an exotic type that no one can replicate and also doesn't look like a superconductor in any measurements!" Okay, so could any number of other compounds, many of which are far more promising than this one (e.g. some USOs have shown actual definite diamagnetism). Why should we care about this one?